W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > April 2011

Re: ACTION-408, description of "rating"

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:12:36 -0700
Cc: Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-id: <F4DB4AF7-78CF-4043-9D36-46C630BCC4B9@apple.com>
To: "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
here, for your information, is the document being sent to 3GP SA Plenary for formal approval



once that has happened, I will try to remember to update the mapping tables!

On Apr 18, 2011, at 8:32 , Bailer, Werner wrote:

> Yes, you are right, in the 3GPP mapping table, rating is not listed, so please add the mapping. Also collection name maps to ma:collection.
>  
> Best regards,
> Werner
>  
>  
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
> Sent: Montag, 18. April 2011 17:28
> To: Bailer, Werner
> Cc: Joakim Söderberg; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ACTION-408, description of "rating"
>  
>  
> On Apr 18, 2011, at 8:18 , Bailer, Werner wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks for the info.
>  
> I don’t think that we need any updates, as ma:rating has a way of specifying the type of rating (URI or string), as well as min/max. The only thing that we do not record is whether the unit was stars, points, or anything else …
>  
> Cool.  There is probably a mapping table I need to help with, no?
>  
> StarRating -- either 0 (un-rated), or an integer between 10 and 50 inclusive, indicating a rating of 1.0 to 5.0 stars inclusive.
> 
> 
>  
> Best regards,
> Werner
>  
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
> Sent: Montag, 18. April 2011 16:55
> To: Bailer, Werner
> Cc: Joakim Söderberg; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ACTION-408, description of "rating"
>  
> Interestingly, I was about to tell you that 3GPP approved adding a distinct 'star rating' annotation to the metadata set (distinct from 'rating agency rating'), along with 'collection name' and 'thumbnail', last week in San Diego.
>  
> Do we need to update any tables?
>  
> On Apr 18, 2011, at 6:57 , Bailer, Werner wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Joakim,
>  
> Just a proposal for a small change to your text:
>  
> The rating value (e.g., customer rating, review, audience appreciation), specified by …
>  
> Best regards,
> Werner
>  
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joakim Söderberg
> Sent: Sonntag, 17. April 2011 20:24
> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: ACTION-408, description of "rating"
>  
> Hello,
> I suggest we add something to the description of “rating” in order to distinguish from “targetAudience”:
>  
> Proposal:
>  
> The rating value based on for example user votes or reviews, specified by a tuple defining the rating value, an optional rating person or organization defined as either a URI (recommended best practice) or as plain text, and an optional voting range. The voting range can optionally be used to define the minimum and maximum values that the rating can have.
>  
> Old:
>  
> A tuple defining the rating value, an optional rating person or organization defined as either a URI (recommended best practice) or as plain text, and an optional voting range. The voting range can optionally be used to define the minimum and maximum values that the rating can have.
>  
> Opinions?
>  
> /Joakim
>  
>  
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>  
>  
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>  

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 18 April 2011 18:13:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:41 UTC